IETF Logo Mail Archive

[lp-wan] review draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc-03 (part II)

"Prof. Diego Dujovne" <diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl> Wed, 24 May 2017 10:35 UTC

Return-Path: <diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl>
X-Original-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37302129492 for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2017 03:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mail-udp-cl.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NqGKGG0MnPIz for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2017 03:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x234.google.com (mail-yw0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64212127286 for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 May 2017 03:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x234.google.com with SMTP id l74so87081235ywe.2 for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 May 2017 03:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mail-udp-cl.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=M0ow3/iExWGzr1xaTnZTEB8yenp647lbiWGYp1h510c=; b=kaWD0qpr5moiteR7/ECYbQeydzW8/MXFRu+b5BifMTVrENZLGlUqL6h/7ENKuuQgHX Z8UACnBSfTuuNvz4CAnQ6tWlsV+C5QLUatFEQ2vZLY97TvyQTwaisUOkO6oE1zxUg9gD A5w59DMzSdNOY8ceJIzuwEPeF+lTYII054EvDsAM1n3oWUlkBzNArKB30v6EHjGp3Wj6 nrKo2garmqVqNufLLEVpTDd8K5xjVvp39lVV7r+Q621mCbUYXkI0MncWMnU1YPlhNa9N vc9jXVYZ4hryvT4UmJt9i4KArQVk+sLv2/vhItXSD4pj7kgf314uyM9/tRk9IXDZWLlY oGEQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=M0ow3/iExWGzr1xaTnZTEB8yenp647lbiWGYp1h510c=; b=Tau871jVqoaW3vvz3df+dRBsAcm4lQNHNeHc3xWIw5xG+4DKuatJzbIHMxDk2PhWJE bLjuXYD+iKRltqLRpXR33tGZlOLZ12xS5czEnXR/JVi3CF8DGe/4JDvE0jW/spqWdLIs hVj6njQhYIdSFug7f0dUEhuE1KATqUNc+la1AuM6UVAwW2FPpxWQF3jgjXOy+VSNUkvZ POKTw91Bof/R1S4wLsWGxWB16nBE+/z5PFVImt3ND+9JP/Q6YInBpQJ/Ho6Y1+cqPgRc HnYeJdraA79BUcqXnlCF2uocfrClUHd7axTDGpdjdC5Thy3KnHIXZS7JDLh0HgbLoi/D JkXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcD1qrlckeJ997hlhicLOpz/R296hfYgEEiFasnGcD/NCkbj749g QZd8CwnPDPIyOVSj9aZq0HHcITy5plDV4rg=
X-Received: by 10.129.183.7 with SMTP id v7mr29146680ywh.15.1495622106021; Wed, 24 May 2017 03:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.13.208.196 with HTTP; Wed, 24 May 2017 03:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Prof. Diego Dujovne" <diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 06:34:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CAH7SZV_WQghtfCN5FoA_xgMHndXAoHS5MC7Q2J7rt0-AbenXkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: lp-wan <lp-wan@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1cbcba591a2a055042a812"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/4JQZk-uaZfvhNdzl9HXLnojbEy4>
Subject: [lp-wan] review draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc-03 (part II)
X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Low-Power Wide Area Networking \(LP-WAN\), also known as LPWA or Low-Rate WAN \(LR-WAN\)" <lp-wan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lp-wan>, <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lp-wan/>
List-Post: <mailto:lp-wan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan>, <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 10:35:10 -0000

I post the review from section 8 until the end.

Fragmentation

- "If the datagram does not fit within a single L2 data unit, it SHALL

   be broken into fragments."


And if not broken into fragments, the alternative is to

drop the packet?


- "Things (End Systems)"


There was recently a discussion on using or not the term

"Things" for devices. This shall follow the results of this

discussion.


- "topology, and therefore"


remove comma.


Reliability options: discussion


- "Figure Figure 7 summarizes"


remove one "Figure"


- "provides flow control"


I don't know if this is exactly flow control in the terms

of what it is known in TCP. For TCP, one lost packet signals

that the bandwidth limit for the flow is full (probably due

to congestion), and there is no congestion at the lpwan level.

What is true is that this mechanism stops


- Figure 7


Do we differentiate Figures and Tables?


Fragmentation header formats



I am worried about the "SHALL" term. The header MUST be

as described, if not, there will be no interoperability.


I suggest to describe the fields of the fragmentation

header before the types of header. One has to wait to the

last one to understand them.

I can understand you have to create a rule for each

fragmentation reliability option used. Am I right?


-  "options,

  N equal to or "


remove CR/LF


-"The ACK

          provides"


remove CR/LF


-"sender

   renumbers the CFNs


remove CR/LF


Aborting a fragmented IPv6 datagram transmission


*As it is defined in this section by *TBD_ABORT_RX*, it would be
practical to have a list *

*of rule identifiers required to implement fragmentation.*


*- "* on- going,"


remove space.


Security considerations for fragmentation


- "{HHWH}"


what is this?






-- 
DIEGO DUJOVNE
Profesor Asociado
Escuela de Informática y Telecomunicaciones
Facultad de Ingeniería - Universidad Diego Portales - Chile
www.ingenieria.udp.cl
(56 2) 676 8125

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email